2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - January 8, 2009 Crrv oh~ Boul.nl~;Ii
PLANNING BOARll AC'CION MINUTES
January 8, 2009
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
arc retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www.houldercolorado. lov/
PLANNING BUARD MEMBERS PRI?SENT:
KC Becker
Bill Holicky
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson
Phil Shull, Chair j
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: '
Mdrew Shoemaker
Adrian Sophcr '
STAFF PRESENT':
David llriskell, Deputy 1=xecutive llirector~ of Community Planning
llavid Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Karl Guiler, Planner II
Alice Guthrie, Parks and,Planning Superintendent '
Cluis I-lagland, Senior,~T'ransportation Planner with GoBoulder
Ruth McHeyscr, I:xecutivc Director of Community Planning
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
r aula Weber, Administrative Specialist III
1. CAi.L TO O12llER
Chair, P. Shull, declared a duorurri at G:10 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
Z. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vo minutes were scheduled for approval.
3. I'Lii3i.IC PAIZTICIPA'1'ION
No one from the public addressed the board.
4. Ul5CI1SSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CAi.L-UPS
Call-up: Boulder Creek 'frail Bridge Replacement Floodplain Development Permit
(LUR2008-00104). No action was taken on this item.
Disposition: 1559 Orchard Ave. Lot tine elimination to reconnect outlot to main property.
No action was taken un this item.
1
5. • AC"PION ITh:1\1S
A. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review and Ilse Review application #LUR2008-
00083 for the Washington Village II project located at 1215 Cedar Avenue. ~"Chc
proposal includes redevelopment of the existing Washington 1~.lementary School site as a
mixed-use eo-housing community consisting of 33 dwelling units, approximately 2,950
square feet of commercial/office space, and accessory co-housing facilities on the three-acre
site zoned both Residential High Density "two (RH-2) and Residential Low Ucnsity One
(RL-1). The applicant also requests vested rights pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981.
Case Manager: Karl Guiler
The board introduced themselves and reviewed the rules of the meeting.
Staff Presentation
R. McHeyser introduced the item and highlighted the process and purpose of~the review.
h. Guiler, C. Ragland and A. Guthrie presented the item to the board.
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Jim Leach, Wonderland Hill l~evclopment Company, and Steve Vosper, ARC11 Inc., presented
the item to the board.
Public Hcarinl;
John Decker, 3435 17'h Street, spoke in support.
i3ctte Radler, 104 Model "T Road, spoke in support.
Bill Butler, 3232 6"' Street, spoke in support.
f)ianc Dvorin, 3232 6`h Strcct, spoke in support.
C'ar! Worthington, 3773 Wonderland Hill Avenue, spoke in support.
Nancy Blackwood, 1 U65 9"' Strcct, spoke in support.
Arthur Ok~iel, 1622 Yellow Pinc Avenue, spoke in support.
Carole I,indroos, 2525 Arapahoe Avenue III4, spoke in support.
Ron Cleary, 1742 C;arland Lanc, spoke in opposition.
Stephanie Ridgway, 1 134 Maxwell Avenue III, spoke in support.
Goof Cahoon, 1420 L-'Ider Avenue, spoke in opposition.
Mary Young, 1420 Alpine Avenue, spoke in support (with several conditions).
Michael I-Iibner, 2950 Washington Street (pooled time with Fran Brown) spoke in opposition.
(<orkut Onaran, 3000 Broadway, spoke in support.
Paul I {eller, 1321 Cedar Avenue, asked for more analysis on parking.
Libby Brown, 2951 loth Strcct, spoke in opposition.
John Huyler, 1674 Yellow Pinc Avcnuc, spoke in support.
Anne Carson, 3085 6`h Street, spoke in support.
Barbara Koscr, ] 614 Zamia (pooled tune with Linda Spiegler), spoke in support.
I )avid Carson, 3085 6`h Street, spoke in support.
Fred Rubin, 1329 Cedar Avcnuc, spoke in opposition.
Bob Pocshl, 2950 Broadway, asked for a redesign of the project before it is approved.
Ilenry Kroll, 1662 Yellow Pi~~c Avenue, (pooled time with Jean Kroll), spoke in support.
Christopher Shears, 365 Quail ('irclc, spoke in support.
Annie RttsselI, 1634 Yellow Pine Avenue, spoke in support.
Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey, (pooled time with Margaret Massey) spoke in opposition.
Stan and Holly Kyed, 2945 l 3'h Street, spoke in opposition.
Elisabeth Payton, 2605 5`I' Street, spoke in opposition.
Elisabeth Allen, Boulder, spoke in opposition.
Chris Haltetnan, 1331 Cedar Avenue, spoke in opposition.
Ryan I~arlner2907 Shadow Creek Avenue, spoke in support.
Mary Willix, 596 Wild Ridge l_.ane, Lafayette, spoke in support.
Board Discussion
P. Shull asked staff to comment on the detention pond, height of the building and parking
reduction.
R. ~iclleyser said the applicant does not agree with staff's recommendation to spread the
det~nf i-m pond on other pads, which would require removal of at least one building. The large
issue with the detention pond on the site is with thegracles and the potential for it to be filled
w'th water, which would render the open space unusable. There tnay be other alternatives in
terms of spreading the detention elsewhere on the site; however, staff made their
recommendation on the most feasible possibility.
Ik. CGuiler said the 4l foot building height recommendation was based on the approval of the
previous plans and its height being proportional to other buildings in the area.
lletention Pond
;<3. Holicky asked how liability is factored in for public access to Holiday Park in north Boulder,
where the partial outlot is-tised for detention and partially used far the public park but
maintained, managed a~fid owned by the HOA (Home Owners Association).
R. Mc[Teyser said the city would not be responsible for the detention in that case because it is
owned by the IfOA.
D. Lehr clarified that Holiday Park public access would be an issue for the owning HOA, which
is the case with p2-ivate land.
K. Becker asked staff to respond- to the applicant's suggestion in separating the detention area.
K. Guiles replied that staff has evaluated the functionality of the detention area from an
engineering and useable open space perspective. Although, there are a variety of ways to make it
function for drainage purposes, the general functionality of the open space is staff's principle
concern.
W. Johnson asked staff to respond to the applicant's assertion that it wou]d not work to have the
detention on the proposed areas due to the fact that the lowest point on the site is at that corner
(visually pointing to the site plan}.
S. Buelchee said the bottom of the pond must gravity feed out to Cedar and the applicant is
trying to get the outfall of the detention pond to the lowest point on the site, which is towards the
SE corner. One way around that is to pipe the outlet structure through the park, which effectively
moves the detention pond from the park using a buried pipe and flat grade. Staff is okay with the
buried pipe but not okay with the water quality facility in that position.
W. Johnson asked if Parks and Recreation would approve the buried pipe.
S. Buckbee stated that he has not had a discussion with Parks and Recreation specific to this site.
He noted that other parks around the city have buried pipes, which are considered a part of the
city's storm infrastz-ucture and are maintained by utilities and parks.
P. Shull asked what engineering technology would be available to help solve this situation.
S. Buckbee said potential options include: considering green roofs, doing the access lane in
porous pavers to shrink the size of the pond and get it out of the park, or allowing underground
detention using large underground concrete vaults that contain the water. He added that. the water
quality treatment is more difficult underground. He said the city has to use storm scepters which
spins the water in a circle and separates the solids. As far as getting the.water quality treatment
of grass landscape structures, a filter system work wells but is costly to install and maintain.
T3. Holicky asked about reducing the run off using pervious pavement.
S. Buckbee said a lot of volume in the pond is driven by the water quality requirement (2/3 to
70-80`%x) and based on the site being over an acre. The pond is about 4,400 cubic feet. Piping to
Goose: Greek using a 100-year pipe to reduce the runoff would only offset 20% of the pond
volume and the pond would still encroach into the park.
B. Holicky asked, potentially, how many days a year could there be buildup of~water in a
detention pond.
S. Buckbee stated on an average, six times a surruner to roughly 20 times in a wetyear.
P. Shull asked for the number and location of the detention ponds on the site.
Dave Heinrich, JVA, replied two ponds on site, one near the SW corner and the other to the SE
corner.
Fark
B. Holicky stated that it appears the city does not wish to maintain a pond above ground. He
suggested that the property be owned and maintained by the applicant and that the public have
access to the property-
D. Gehr said the board should consider this land as open space and not a park. Staff is reviewing
this site as usable open space for the development per the Site Review Criteria. If it is to be a
park, then Parks and Recreation staff and City Council will make that determination later.
B. Holicky. said if the applicant cannot have the detention pond on a city park, the question
becomes whether that.-open space is dedicated as a park is paramount in the decision.
D. Gehr said if there is detention on the space then Parks and Recreation does not want the space
as a~park,.but the space could still be open space.
K. I3eeker-did not support the condition that the applicant would have to have the detention pond
at the south carriage house or single family building unit. She could support other methods of
storm water management consistent with the Design and Construction Standards. She could also
support splitting the site with the park space and the detention area separate.
Y. Shull suggested minimizing the detention on this site through collaboration with the city and
tcchrzical innovation and suggested moving it onto one of the other two lots. He lurther stated
that a three and one-half foot s}ope is not considered flat. He also felt there could be an
interesting usable landscaped amenity for the neighborhood. e
B. Holicky did not like the design of the eastern side of the site. He was specifically concerned
with the three houses turned away from 13'x' Street that cluster around an open space, single
family lots one and two that face the side of single family building four, and the back-ends of
Jots one, two and three facing the northern neig}ibors. Ne said aside from the open space, the
previous site plan that had the houses facing the street, was a better design. He further stated that
4
there will not be active recreation on this impaired space but nearby parks are available for
recreational use. He was not opposed to the retention in the pond and suggested that a
rcquirernent be added to minimi-re and improve it to the b4st extent possible.
K. Becker said the pocket park has value given its si-rc.
D. Gehr said the applicant has stated their willingness to make this a park site with respect to
earlier conversations with the Attorney's Office and applicant outside the context of tonight's
hearing.
N. Shull suggested that the applicant minimise the detention facilities such that it has a usahlc
quality. He said another option is to compartmentalize about IO,000 feel of usable space and
3,OU0 feet of detention where we go to an outlet condition to see if we can satisfy parks. He
summarized the two options as 1) being a disbursement theory where grade be gradual over the
entire site or having a noticeable detention on the SE corner.
R. Mclleyser said if the drainage is over the whole site there would be liability issues and would
not be publicly accessible. 1-lowevcr, the second option would allow for a separate outlet where
the city could take ownership.
P. Shull supported making this area a park and not.a"detention.area.
W. Johnson supported that this be a public park:
13uildin~ Ilci~ht
P. Shrill supported the roofline structure and said the 4l foot flat roof would feel taller.
I~:..l-,nes asked if it is possible to lower the building and keep the roof form.
K. Becker liked the new roof room but wondered if it would have~to be 46 feet in height.
W. Johnson also liked the roof form. She said the current height is-being dictated to create
wheelchair accessibility of the connection to the school br.rilding.
Dave Ileinrirh, .IVA, stated the height was dictated by the connection to the school and the
drive way.
13. 1Tolicky asked where the mechanical units are located.
Steve Vosper, ARC'II lnc., said the roof cuts clown on the back side to create a slat space for the
mechanical units. He added that the units do not protrude on the west side.
I?..lunes asked what would happen to the building if it were lowered five feet, but maintained
the hip roofline.
B. Ilolicky asked if the applicant has given any thought to taking the center out of the roof to
lower the rootline.
Steve Vosper, ARCH Inc., said they did look at that and it looked out of proportion.
('ommercial Space
W. Johnson supported the commercial space in the proximity to Broadway.
I'. Shull said his concern with commercial space is parking demands. tle would however
~unsider a parking reduction.
W. Johnson said street life is better with commercial but only with the right amount of traffic.
She was open to a discussion about converting the space to residential.
B. Holicky noted that the applicant stated that this development is coaxed on residential space
allowance due to the RH-2 zoning.
Ik. Becker said removing the commercial building would require redesigning the site.
B. Ilolicky approved the commercial space because additional residential is not an option.
}lowevcr, commercial space requires parking spaces. Since there arr. only nine parkin~~ spaces, it
is more likely to be leased as office space. He suggested that the nine commercial parking
spaces be open parking from 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM.
P. Shull asked if uses other than commercial were considered on this silo.
K. Guiler said if the commercial was switched from an office type it could generate the need #or
more parking.
W. Johnson supported retaining the commercial area and said it would bring a more viable street
life to the community. She also liked the building design.
K. Becker was fine with the commercial use and did not find the third floor to be a problem.
E..Tones could easily get rid of the commercial due to the building height and would prefer a
shorter bui}ding. In addition, she was concerned with the parking implications to the community.
B. Holicky said the three story building is appropriate on this site~and is appropriate in relation to
other three story buildings on Broadway. He also stated the building.is compliant with the
zonine.
B. 1Flolicky preferred the flat roof at 41 feet over the hipped roof_at 46 feet.
K. Becker preferred the hipped roof over the flat roof.
E..lones stated she would not be opposed to changing the roof to a flat roof in'order t~ get to 4l
feet.
B. ~lolielcy would also support the hip roof.
ParkiP?~ and 't'ransportation
W. Johnson said this is one of the best transit oriented sites in Boulder and would agree to a
parking reduction. She supported the staff recommendation of requiring three extra parking
spaces or the applicant's proposal of the deferred spaced. She said the neighbor's
recommendation that there be a car dedicated space makes sense. She also suggested changing
the proposed use review condition that instead of the offices being closed from 6:00 PM to 8:00
AM that their parking spaces be availab}e to residential from 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM
B. Holicky suggested applying the R"1~I~ EcoPass requirement to the commercial space for a
period of }onger than three years.
Y. Shull noted that the applicant indicated they would be able to find the three parking spaces
that staff recommended.
W. Johnson was in favor of deferring the parking spaces.
E. Jones preferred to get-rid of the commercial parking space.
B. Holicky also supported deferring the parking spaces.
D. Gehr noted that the code requires an applicant that has a deferred parking requirement to
build it within 30 days of'the request of the City Manager.
Single Family
W. Johnson supported the size of the single family unit.
B. I~olicky inquired if the compatibility development rules apply to this project if approved.
D. Gehr replied, yes.
W. Johnson said the intent is that the project would be compatible with the code regardless if
that was an AR tool or another tool.
D. Gehr stated that there are a lot of different tools being applied to these dwelling units. He said
there is a 2,500 square foot house size }imitation coupled with a 500 foot allowable garage space
and additional 3.50 square feet for a studio.
K. Becker said she would consider revising the site to change the FAR.
6
K. Guiler said the FAR is calculated by the total square footage of the entire land area within
RI, 1. The changing factor is the open space park that may be calved away i f donated to the city,
which would change the FAR calculation.
H. Hoiicky asked would be the incentive to donate the land for a park to the city.
K. Guiler indicated that if the park area was donated, single family floor area would still comply
with proposed 0.5 r'AR.
N11:.Ruffer
W. Johnson indicated there isquite abit of buffer-. She added that a three foot buffer to
accommodate the drip line of the tree in an effort to preserve the tree would be a compromise.
K. Bect:er liked the applicant's suggestion of landscape buffering.
K. Guiler stated tl3at the furthest east tree on the north property Line is a Siberian F_;lm and is in
poor health. The arborist is recommending removal of the tree. T'he next tree is the Crab Apple to
the north of the fence, which is in good health.
E. Janes asked what the minimum buffer would be to protect the Crab Apple tree.
K. Guiler said typically the preservation of a tree is not build within the drip line; in this case ten
feet_ (Inc note that factored into the proposed five foot buffer was based our landscape architect's
suggestion for four feet to brave viable plantings.
I..Iones asked if it would be viable to suggest penneable pavement.
IC. Guiler replied, yes.
Dave Heinrich, JVA, said the reason not to use.pcr7neable pavement is due to the fact That yol.l
need to dig deeper, which disrupts the roots. "this is why they went with blacktop as opposed to
concrete giving an 8" disburse.
i'. Shull did not feel there is a need for the additional requested buffer in order to preserve the
trees. He was not willing_to demand the five feet:
E. Jones suggested a condition that `increases the-affected buffering through enhanced
landscaping. , ~ ~ ~ ,
W. Johnson supported enhancing the buffer and preserving the trees.
Motion
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by P. Shull the 1'lannin~; E3au-d approved (4-1 E Junes
d~poscd, A. Sophcr rccused, A. Shoemal:cr absent) Site review and Use review application
LUR 2008-000 ~ Ii>r the Washrni;ton Vllla.r~e II protect located at 1215 Cedar Ave. incorporating
the memorandum and the attached Site Review and Use Review criteria dated Jan. 8 2009 as
findings of fact, subject to the followin coriditipns of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I . The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with alt approved plans entitled Washington Village II dated November 17,
2008 and January 8, 2009 and on 61e in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except
as maybe modified by this approval.
2. The portion of the site that is zoned RH-2 shall be operated as a co-housing community
consistent with the Applicant's written statement dated September 12, 2008 on file with
the C~"ity of Boulder Planning Department.
7
3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit "1•cc}uiical
Document Review applications for the following items, subject to the approval of
the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division:
a) A final site development plan for the entire site that is consistent with the
approved site development plan with the following revisions:
i) Benches shall be added to the perimeter of the southeastern open space.
ii) A landscaped buffer between the existing chain link fence location and the
north property line shall be planted with additional shnibs and small to
medium sized trees to increase compatibility and buffering between the
subject site and the single family residence ta,the irnn~ediate north. The
existing chain link fence maybe improved or replaced after consultation with
the property owner to the north tci ensure that the property is adequately
buffered from the development's noise and vehicular impacts associated with
the access drive.
iii) The detention area alad stormwater quality facility on the southeastern
open space area shall be reduced in size to the extent practical through the use
of alternative methods of detention and treatment. Such facilities shall be
designed and constructed in a manner that maximizes the useable opel~ space
in the southeasteln open space area that. will not be used for stor-mwater
detention and treatment. The method of stormwater management shall meet
the requirements of the C_'iry of
I~v7{lder Design and Cvnstruction Standards
and shall avoid any significant changes to building footprints or the general
site design.
i ,b') A detailed landscape and tree protection plan, including size, quantity, and
type of plazits existing and proposed; type and quality of real-living landscaping
materials; any site grading proposed; and the proposed irrigation system, to insure
compliance~with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. T'he plans
must conform- to the preliminary Tree Preservation Plan and arborist assessment
attached to the approved plans. Any construction that affects the existing trees,
ilieluding but not limited to foundations, grading, impervious surfaces, and the
erection of walls within the vicinity of trees tU be preserved that result in
unanticipated damage to existing trees, shall require mitigation pursuant to the
detailed landscape and tree protection plan.
c) A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination
units, S1IUWIIlg COnlpl]allCe Wrth SeCtron 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981.
d) A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and
type of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or
reserved for deferred parking) to insure compliance with this approval and
S
Section 9-9-6, I3.1z.(;. 1 r)ti I. "['his plan shall acconuruxlate three additional
deterred parking spaces on the RL-l portion of the lot. "I~he three spaces, when
constructed, shall be signed appropriately to designate for multi-family residents
or guests, shall not require the removal of any trees, and shall be surfaced with
pern~eable pavement and/or pavers consistent with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction ,Standards.
e) A detailed shadow analysis to insure compliance with the City's solar access
requirements of Section ~)-9-17, B.R.C. 1941.
~ Final Storm Water Plans and Report rnccting the City of Boulder Design and
Cn,rstruction Standards.
g) Final Utility Plans and Report meeting the City of Boulder Design and
C~„tstr,~rtiu~r .Starn/u,•ds. The revisions required to the preliminary utility report
may be completed as part of the final Utility Report. The revisions to the report
require elimination of the proposed water main along the north side of the site and
an upgrade of the existing water main in Cedar-Avenue from a 6" main to an 4"
main.
h) hinal transportation engineering plans meeting the City q/'Boulder Design and
Construction ,Standards for all transportation improvements.
4. Prior to a building pern~it application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no
cost, the following as part ofTechnical-Document Review applications, subject to the
approval of the City ot•Boulder Plartining and Development Services Division:
a) 2U foot easement fcir emergency and shared access along the northerly edges of
the portion of the site coned RL-1 in the location of the shared access drive;
b) 25 foot easement for utilities, emergency and shared access along the westerly of
the portion of the site zoned RI,-1 in the location of the shared access drive;
c) .'1 25 toot wide utility easement along the northern portion of the site extending
from the emergency and shared access casement to Broadway;
il) Utility easements as necessary for the proposed fire hydrants and water meters;
c) A public access easement 1 foot beyond the edge of the transit shelter pad on
Broadway; and
f) A public access easement l toot beyond the sidewalk limits along Broadway and
l Street.
S. Prior to a building permit application on the portion of the site that is zoned RII-2, the
Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application, subject to the approval
of the Planning Diructur, tier the following items:
a) hinal architectural plans, including materials and arlors, to insure compliance
wilh.the intent of this approval and compatibility with the historic school and
surrounding area and including the following revision:
c)
1. 'fhe final architectural plans and elevations shall include revisions that
modify the facade of the west elevation of the south carriage house (if
retained) to ensure that the building presents an attractive streetscape
appropriate to the pedestrian scale.
6. Prior to a building permit application on the portion of the site that is zoned R>EI-2, the
Applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form and amount acceptable to the
Director of Public Works, to guarantee those items proposed in the Applicant's
Transportation Demand Management ("I'DM) plan, including transit passes.
7. 'The applicant shall provide EcoPasses to employees that work in the commercial
o#'fice space. The applicant shall provide a financial guarantee for a period of three years
after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the tenant finish of the commercial
space in an amount to lrtiarantee the distribution of EcoPasses.
8. Prior to a building permit application on the- portion of the site that is zoned R}1-2 and is
paT-t of the proposed individual landmark site, the Applicant shall apply to landmark the
historic school building and secure a landmark alteration certificate required by
Chapter 9-1 1, "Historic Preservation," I3.R.C. lc~8l .
9. Prior to application for a building permit on the portion of the site that is zoned R~L-'l, the
Applicant. shall submit a Teclvzical Document Review application, subject to the approval
of the Plaiming Director, for final architectural plans that demonstrate compliance with
approved design guidelines prepared by the Applicant and include the fc>]lowing
limitations:
a) The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the single-#~~mily homes shall be 0.5:1
averaged across the land area included within the RL-] portion and within the
. ~ confines of the project, ar the underlying RL- t FAR limit at time of building
~ ~ permit, if less than 0.5:1.
. b) The principal dwelling on each lot shall not exceed a floor area of 2,500 square
feet, the garage shall not exceed 500 square feet, and any studio space above the
garage may not exceed 350 square feet.
c} The second level of the principal strticturc shall not exceed 75% of the ground
level floor area of said structure.
d) To ensure appropriate massing and- architectural compatibility, the ma~onty of
each single family roof forms shall be gable and/or hip roofs with the uppermost
portion of the roofs having a roof pitch no less than 5:12.
10
e) The single family dwellings shall present attractive street faces to the southeastern
open space and all streetscapes to ensure that the buildings present an attractive
streetscape appropriate to the pedestrian scale. Attractive street faces may include
any combination of porches, detailing, and appropriate fenestration.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL -USE REVIEW
l . The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans entitled Washington Village I1 dated November 17,
2008 and January 8, 2009 and the written statement dated September 12, 2UU8, on file
in the City of Boulder Plaruiing Department, except as maybe modified by this approval.
2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved Ease, except pursuant to
Subsection 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981.
j,.
3. The Applicant shall ensure that the approved gffiee uses are operated in compliance with
the written statement dated September ]2!2008; pursuant to the following restrictions:
a) Professional and Technical Offices are approved in the non-residential space
along Broadway not to exceed 2,9.50 square feet.
b) Nine (9) parking spaces shall be designated within the Broadway Building for the
office uses during the hours of 8:UU am. to 4:OU p.m. and shall otherwise be
available for residential uses outside'"these~hours.
Statements of Opposition
E. Jo,ic:s rccog~iied that the project has a lot of merit and said this is the right location for a
co-housing project. I lgwever, she did clot support the proposed height of the Eroadway
building and how the biiildiii~; overly dominates the school building, which is the heart and
soul of this property. She also did not support the eastern side of the property.
6. MA'I"I'F;RS FROM THF, PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIREC 1'OR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
R. McHeyser introduced D. Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning, to the
board.
R. Mel.Ieyser distributed the January 13 Junior Academy packet to the board.
R. McHeyser said council requested that a Planning Board member be available at
upcoming council meetings to represent the board's position on the Walgreen's and
Junior Academy call-up items.
R. McHeyser reviewed the Planning Board calendar.
7. DF,KRIEF/AG.H;NDA CHECK
There was no discussion.
11
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:35 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
12